Indiana Horse Racing Commission v. Edmund W. Martin Jr. - 5/8/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Wednesday  May 8, 2013 
7:00 PM  EST

7 p.m. 49A02-1206-PL-512. Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Edmund W. Martin was employed by the Indiana Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association in 2010. In November 2010, the Executive Director of the Indiana Horse Racing Commission issued an exclusion notice to Martin prohibiting him from entering any Indiana racing facilities until he obtained a license under Indiana Code section 4-31-61. Martin objected to the notice and administrative proceedings ensued. The administrative law judge determined that Martin was a participant in racing and was required to be licensed. On administrative appeal of the decision, the IHRC affirmed and adopted the ALJ's decision. Martin appealed the administrative order to the Marion Superior Court, and the parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court set aside and vacated the IHRC's order requiring Martin to be licensed. The IHRC now appeals.

Back to Events
Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT